The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Implementing Machine Learning in Health Care — Addressing Ethical Challenges
Open accessAbstract
We need to consider the ethical challenges inherent in implementing machine learning in health care if its benefits are to be realized. Some of these challenges are straightforward, whereas others have less obvious risks but raise broader ethical concerns.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“how principles of algorithmic fairness might apply in clinical decision-making has received little attention in the medical literature7,8.”
From Predictably unequal: understanding and addressing concerns that algorithmic clinical prediction may increase health disparities (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“As AI becomes more pervasive in both public and personal health across diverse populations, there have been increasing concerns, and related examples, of AI solutions leading to inadvertent bias of modeling results (45–48).”
From Accessing Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Decision-Making (2021) · cites this paper as [45]
In the citing paper
“Abramoff et al. proposed ethical frameworks for AI27–31 to help proactively address the issue of undesirable algorithmic bias as well as other concerns with AI.”
From Considerations for addressing bias in artificial intelligence for health equity (2023) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“These ethical and other concerns with AI in healthcare have been shown by a number of research studies27–29.”
From Considerations for addressing bias in artificial intelligence for health equity (2023) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“Trust between public and healthcare systems is essential for effective healthcare delivery [36].”
From Use of AI-based tools for healthcare purposes: a survey study from consumers’ perspectives (2020) · cites this paper as [36]
In the citing paper
“Ethical concerns about the use of AI in health care include undermining patient data privacy protections and exacerbating the existing tension between providing care and generating profit, as well as introducing a third party into the patient-doctor relationship, which changes expectations of confidentiality and responsibility (10).”
From Artificial intelligence for global health (2019) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“Healthcare data are sensitive information about a person [23, 83] which is also related to personal privacy.”
From Ethics and governance of trustworthy medical artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“However, some technical understanding is imperative for quality and safety assessment and therefore create trust in the AI application’s reliability [8, 21, 30].”
From Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in radiology: hindering and facilitating factors (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“AI is expected to cause large changes in clinical work practices and requires complementary skills from radiologists [5, 7, 8].”
From Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in radiology: hindering and facilitating factors (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Similarly, the use of AI‐based solutions may raise several moral questions in medicine 64 , 65 : would we trust computers to screen for disease, prioritize treatment, diagnose, treat, discharge?”
From Introduction to artificial intelligence in ultrasound imaging in obstetrics and gynecology (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Predicting the future - big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine
Obermeyer, Z., & Emanuel, E. J. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1606181 · Cited by 3,652
Confidentiality in Medicine — A Decrepit Concept
Siegler, M. A. (1982) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198212093072411 · Cited by 266
Gijsberts, C. M., Groenewegen, K. A., Hoefer, I. E., Eijkemans, M. J. C., Asselbergs, F. W., Anderson, T. J., Britton, A. R., Dekker, J. M., Engström, G., Evans, G. W., et al. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132321 · Cited by 197
A ‘Green Button’ For Using Aggregate Patient Data At The Point Of Care
Longhurst, C., Harrington, R. A., & Shah, N. H. (2014) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0099 · Cited by 159
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,002 of 1,002
Metrics reloaded: Recommendations for image analysis validation
Maier-Hein, L., Reinke, A., Godau, P., Tizabi, M. D., Buettner, F., Christodoulou, E., Glocker, B., Isensee, F., Kleesiek, J., Kozubek, M., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.01653 · Cited by 59
“8 Example – neglecting the small size of structures: single-pixel differences can hugely impact the metric scores, which is especially relevant given high inter-rater variability and the non-deterministic nature of AI algorithms Example – inappropriate aggregation scheme: hierarchical data structure is often neglected…”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Char, D. S., Shah, N. H., & Magnus, D.
- Affiliations
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2018-03-15
- Volume
- 378
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 981-983
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- PMC
- PMC5962261
- OpenAlex
- W2789970635
- Cited by
- 1,857
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 445 · 2025: 309 · 2024: 263 · 2023: 214 · 2022: 162 · 2021: 174 · 2020: 152 · 2019: 95 · 2018: 26
- FWCI
- 29.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Human Genome Research Institute (K01HG008498)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- machine learning, health care ethics, ethical considerations, algorithmic bias, patient privacy, clinical decision support
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Algorithms, Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Delivery of Health Care, Ethics, Medical, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Codes of Ethics, Healthcare Disparities, Racism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
